Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="abirdcall" data-source="post: 7928012" data-attributes="member: 6748898">I agree that if you want to play a character with the Barbarian class which does not fit that class that you should bring it up to the table to get their buy in.The line will differ by table. For you a city Druid who focuses on the wildlife in a city is fine. But what if the player wants to play a character with the Druid class who does not care about wildlife or nature in general?You previously said my example of a non-religious Cleric was extreme and not what we were talking about. I would wager that a lot of people would find such a character to be just fine. How would you feel if someone brought a character (whatever that may be) to your game which you felt was not fitting for it?My stance is that the PHB is a base line. Add in any additional setting rules, books, and supplements being used and players know what is considered acceptable.My stance is that changing things is also fine. However, some changes are not fine. This goes for both 'fluff' and 'mechanics' though I do not recognize that RPGs have true 'fluff' the way other games do. I also don't think 'mechanics' in RPGs are written in stone as written in the books. They should be changed as seen fit by each table as anything else.People in this thread apparently think my stance is extreme. I just don't get it. This is the way I've been playing RPGs my whole life and it's also the way all the players at my table play. As always the internet puts us in contact with people who have entirely different experiences and views so there is that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="abirdcall, post: 7928012, member: 6748898"] I agree that if you want to play a character with the Barbarian class which does not fit that class that you should bring it up to the table to get their buy in. The line will differ by table. For you a city Druid who focuses on the wildlife in a city is fine. But what if the player wants to play a character with the Druid class who does not care about wildlife or nature in general? You previously said my example of a non-religious Cleric was extreme and not what we were talking about. I would wager that a lot of people would find such a character to be just fine. How would you feel if someone brought a character (whatever that may be) to your game which you felt was not fitting for it? My stance is that the PHB is a base line. Add in any additional setting rules, books, and supplements being used and players know what is considered acceptable. My stance is that changing things is also fine. However, some changes are not fine. This goes for both 'fluff' and 'mechanics' though I do not recognize that RPGs have true 'fluff' the way other games do. I also don't think 'mechanics' in RPGs are written in stone as written in the books. They should be changed as seen fit by each table as anything else. People in this thread apparently think my stance is extreme. I just don't get it. This is the way I've been playing RPGs my whole life and it's also the way all the players at my table play. As always the internet puts us in contact with people who have entirely different experiences and views so there is that. [/QUOTE]

Verification